c Tke Answer of 

ERNST HAECKEL 

TO THE FALSEHOODS 

OF THE 

JESUITS 

Catholic and Protestant 

From the German Pampnlet " SANDALION," and 

" MY CHURCH-£lE£ARTURE " 



Being Haeckel s Reasons, as Stated Ly Himself, 
for His Late Withdrawal from the Free 
Evangelical Church, with Comments 
ty Joseph McCabe and Thaddeus 
Burr Wa h e m a n 




THE TRUTH 



New York 

SEEKER 
1911 



COMPANY 



Class U ^LM3 
Book MTaE 
Copyright^ 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT; 



^Ihe Answer of 

ERNST HAECKEL 

TO THE FALSEHOODS 

OF THE 

JESUITS 

Catnolic and Protestant 

From tne German Pamphlet * SANDALION," and 
* MY CHURCH DEPARTURE ** 



Being Haeckels Reasons, as Stated by Himself, 
for His Late ^^ltbdrawal from tte Free 
Evangelical Ckurcn, witb Comments 
by Josepn McCabe and TLaddeus 
Burr Wa keman 



New York 

THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY 
1911 



Copyrighted 
By 

THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY 
1911 



©CI.A286643 



EXTERIOR EVIDENCES OF KINSHIP. 



ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIMATE OF ALL IRELAND. 

Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh and chief 
dignitary of the Catholic Church in Ireland, posed 
for this photograph for the North American at the 
archiepiscopal residence yesterday. — Philadelphia 
North American, May 29, 1908. 



TWO "PRIMATES." 




THE BALD-HEADED CHIMPANZEE (Order Primates). 

Anthropithecus calvus, described by Frank Beddard 
in 1897 as Troglodytes calvus, differs considerably 
from the ordinary A. Niger in the structure of the 
head, the coloring, and the absence of hair in 
parts. — HaeckeVs "Evolution of Man.' " 




ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



BY ERNST HAECKEL. 

Introduction. In April, 1905, I delivered three 
lectures in Berlin on the war over the idea of evo- 
lution. They furnished the occasion for a number of 
violent attacks, directed not so much against the 
essential questions of our modern doctrine of evo- 
lution as against myself, author of 'The Riddle of 
the Universe," in which I treated those great ques- 
tions from the standpoint of the monistic phi- 
losophy. To discredit monism my works were 
called the worthless, misleading fabrications of a 
dilettante. My slanderers were especially success- 
ful in their efforts to brand my embryologic expo- 
sitions and the illustrations accompanying them as 
reprehensible "falsifications of science." What they 
seized upon as most welcome proofs were the 



These pages present a condensed translation of the 
answer made to his Christian slanderers by Prof. Ernst 
Haeckel of the University of Jena, Germany. The Eng- 
lishing of "Sandalion" was done for The Truth Seeker 
by Thomas Seltzer. "My Church Departure" is translated 
by Thaddeus Burr Wakeman. 



4 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



schematized figures of young human embryos and 
the embryos of other vertebrates, which I placed 
next to one another for comparison in a number 
of my works. 

The embryos of vertebrates, especially of mam- 
mals, are most important in proving the history of 
our descent. With the help of comparative an- 
atomy and paleontology, these embryos demonstrate 
to every unprejudiced observer our close kinship 
with the other mammals. Unfortunately the mys- 
terious province of comparative embryology is re- 
mote from the usual fields of culture. It requires 
very much study, thorough preparation in morph- 
ology, and careful discipline of one's critical faculty. 
The opponents of the doctrine of evolution took ad- 
vantage of this fact. They charged me with wilful 
deception and falsifications, because I schematized 
the pictures of the embryos. By "schematize" I 
mean I omitted unessential adjuncts and strongly 
emphasized essential form relations. I also filled 
in deficiencies here and there by comparative syn- 
theses. 

These Jesuitic attacks recently obtained a very 
wide circulation and force me to enter into a dis- 
cussion of my so-called falsifications. I will take 
a concrete, highly important example, the extreme- 
ly interesting sandalion by which I will show in 
what a despicable way the Jesuits themselves falsi- 
fied the truth. 

The Natural Sciences and Religious Con- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



5 



ceptions. The great struggle for truth, the strug- 
gle to attain knowledge, carried on at all times by- 
thinking men, assumed a different character after 
the beginning of the twentieth century from the 
character it had ever before had. In the 
eighteenth century the free spirit of enlighten- 
ment had already been furthered by a great 
number of the most eminent thinkers. But it 
was not until the nineteenth century, the "cen- 
tury of natural science/' that it achieved the 
dominant position inconceivable in previous cul- 
tural epochs. 

The remarkable progress in the natural sciences 
must perforce have had profound influence on the 
philosophy of thinking men. The essential dif- 
ference between the clear dicta of reason in pure 
science and the nebulous imaginings of religion 
came out more sharply than ever before and mani- 
fested itself in many more ways. The positive facts 
actually acquired from modern natural science as 
well as our experiments have led us to the firm con- 
viction that the entire world proceeds according 
to "great, eternal iron laws based upon the very 
nature of things, and that the highest concept, 
God, lies in those laws themselves." This is what 
we believe. On the opposite side are the adherents 
of the traditional churches. They maintain that a 
personal god created and rules the world, that he 
discovered the natural laws according to which the 
world's development takes place. 



ANSWEB TO THE JESUITS. 



The church militant very soon realized the dan- 
ger with which the monistic doctrine of evolution 
threatened its dominion over the minds of the peo- 
ple. It began an energetic campaign against Dar- 
winism, and in the latter third of the nineteenth 
century the struggle took a prominent place in the 
spiritual life of all circles. But by the end of the 
century I could definitely assert in my "Riddle of 
the Universe ,, (1899) that the monistic idea of evo- 
lution had triumphed, and the dualistic doctrine of 
creation had been completely defeated in all prov- 
inces of modern natural philosophy. 

Then the defeated church militant and the 
school of dualistic philosophy connected with it 
deemed it wise to change front and take unto them- 
selves the victorious doctrine of evolution. In this 
direction the Jesuits became extraordinarily active 
— for centuries they had been extremely successful 
in the art of falsifying the truth. I speak both of 
the Catholic Jesuits and the Protestant Jesuits. 
The various schools of the Catholic Jesuits, em- 
braced in the general designation of Thomists, en- 
deavored to revive the scholastic philosophy of St. 
Thomas Aquinas. Competing with them were the 
orthodox schools of the Protestant Jesuits, who 
united in the Kepler League and misused the name 
of the great astronomer Johann Kepler to veil their 
true aim. 

The general object of both these Christian leagues 
is the subjugation of rational science to the tradi- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



7 



tional dogmas of the Christian faith. They now 
believe they will reach their goal most surely if 
they preach the harmony of the two contradictory 
philosophies, the "creation by evolution." A good 
means seems to them to be the overthrow of the 
Monist League, founded in 1905, which has made 
it its duty to develop and propagate the idea of 
monism. 

Though the Jesuits of both confessions went at 
the zealous pursuit of their goal by undauntedly 
practicing the known frauds of Jesuitism and per- 
petrating the riskiest falsifications in science, they 
adopted the genuinely Jesuitic tactics of charging 
others with their own crimes. They concealed their 
own deceptions by accusing the upholders of mon- 
ism, myself in especial, with conscienceless distor- 
tions of the truth. But they are very careful not 
to take a definite stand against the great principles 
in which they differ from me. They direct their 
attacks against a few shortcomings in my works — 
some assumptions and daring hypotheses, or figures 
illustrating my popular works, which have not been 
thoroughly elaborated or are schematized. 

The Thomists axd Keplerists. The remark- 
able history of the Society of Jesuits and their in- 
fluence upon world history are well known. The 
spirit of lying and hypocrisy at the bottom of their 
whole system, their main principle, "the end jus- 
tifies the means," have become a byword. Any 
transgression, any crime is permitted if it serves 



8 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



the highest end. "Everything for the greater glory 
of God" (Omnia in majorem Dei gloriam). The 
Society of Jesuits obtained its greatest influence 
through the three significant declarations of war 
against reason by which Pius IX. tried to get the 
Christian world to bow before his almighty sceptre. 
These were the dogma of immaculate conception 
(1854), the encyclical and the syllabus (1864), an 
absolute condemnation of modern civilization and 
culture, and the dogma of the pope's infallibility 
(1870). In accepting these dogmas, these deeds 
of religious violence, modern Catholicism identified 
itself completely with Jesuitism. 

R. H. France in 1904 very happily characterized 
Jesuitic science. He called it a serious menace, and 
was quite right in doing so because "it systematical- 
ly smuggles the Jesuitic spirit into science, because, 
as a result, it distorts all problems and the solu- 
tion to them, and because it skilfully turns upside- 
down the very principle of science." But this is not 
all. The worst danger resides in the fact that we 
are not sufficiently conscious of our danger. The 
general public and even scientists fall right into 
the cleverly prepared trap and believe there is such 
a thing as a Jesuitic science, the results of which 
may be taken seriously. 

All this is equally true of the Keplerists. Their 
"Christian science" is just as false as the "Jesuitic 
science." Both pursue the same end, the amal- 
gamation of the doctrine of the Christian faith with 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



the results of modern science, in other words, the 
subjection of science to Christian teachings. 

Numerous Catholic associations, with more or 
less distinct shades of difference between them, may, 
in a wide sense, be included in the name Thomist. 

Erich Wasmann. The Jesuit father Erich Was- 
mann is the most important personality among the 
numerous learned Jesuits who are at present fight- 
ing for the Christian belief in revelation and against 
the monistic natural philosophy. He is distin- 
guished for a wide knowledge of zoology, for his 
brilliant oratory, and his skill at fooling people by 
clever dialectics. 

Through acute study of the life and form of in- 
sects, especially of ants and ant guests, Wasmann 
won a reputation as a learned entomologist. But 
the scientific zoology of modern times makes very 
different demands upon the student. It requires 
years of thorough study in comparative anatomy 
and ontogeny, in paleontology and physiology. A 
zoologist who has chosen the study of vertebrates 
for his specialty must know medicine well, for the 
simple reason that the human organism is in every 
way better known to us than that of any other ani- 
mal. As soon as Wasmann leaves the narrower 
sphere of his entomology and enters upon this 
province, his zoologic knowledge reveals astound- 
ing deficiencies. 

By his scientific studies combined with fanatic 
religious zeal Wasmann won a leading position 



10 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



among the Thomists, such as Dennert has among the 
Keplerists. Both are clever and indefatigable in 
their agitation for the "Christian natural sciences." 
both are unscrupulous in the choice of their means, 
both are invincible when an attempt is made to re- 
fute their blind belief with the logic of reason. 

In my lectures in Berlin in 1905 I entered into a 
detailed criticism of Wasmann's chief work deal- 
ing with the great general problem of the modern 
natural philosophy, Die moderne Biologie und die 
Entwickelungslehre. Two years later Wasmann 
made his reply in three lectures at Berlin, which be- 
came of general interest because they were the im- 
mediate occasion for an open scientific battle. Twelve 
speakers opposed Wasmann, and thoroughly contro- 
verted him. Nevertheless the entire ultramontane 
press celebrated his public defeat as a brilliant 
victory. 

Professor Ludwig Plate drew the following con- 
clusions from the debate : "That genuine scientific 
research is impossible within the province of the 
ultramontane church; that the sharp, irreconcilable 
contrast between science and the orthodox Chris- 
tian religion came out very clearly at the discus- 
sion; that even scientific investigators are well 
aware of the limitations of their knowledge, and 
that there are ultimate questions to which no answer 
can be found." 

All these objections to the mystic falsification of 
the doctrine of evolution by Erich Wasmann as the 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



11 



type of the Thomist, apply equally to the sophistical 
misrepresentation of genetics by Eberhard Dennert, 
founder of the Kepler League. 

Two years later Wasmann made a vain attempt 
to rescue "Catholic natural science" and thereby 
destroy monism. He delivered three lectures at 
Innsbruck, which differed from his Berlin lectures 
only in that they contained still more violent attacks 
against me personally, against my anthropogeny, 
and against monism. 

The Kepler League. The younger brother of 
the Catholic Thomist League, the new Protestant 
Kepler League, was founded in November, 1907, 
by one of the most zealous representatives of 
"Christian Natural Science," Dr. Eberhard Den- 
nert, principal of a Protestant school. The aim of 
the League was set forth in his first pamphlet — "to 
further the knowledge of natural science among 
the people at large. The aim also is to carry on 
the fight of natural science against monism." That 
the latter was the chief object of the League is 
shown by the circumstances preceding the forma- 
tion of the League and its entire later attitude. In 
the very first volume of the League's publications 
Dennert said: "It is the religious and moral dan- 
gers with which monism threatens the life of the 
entire people that led to the formation of the 
League." In the preface to the same volume he 
expressly states: "The members of the Kepler 
League stand on the ground of theism." In many 



12 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



other passages of his numerous works he emphasizes 
the very Christian character of his mystic, dualis- 
tic philosophy. The work of his that most clearly 
shows the purpose of his ceaseless agitation is 
Der Darwinismus und seine Einfluss aud die heutige 
Volksbewegung (Darwinism and its Influence upon 
the Modern Popular Movement). In it we find 
definitely formulated the "teachings of the Chris- 
tian philosophy." We learn that: 1. "The world is 
limited by time and was created by an eternal per- 
sonal God. 2. The method according to which God 
created the world has not been revealed to us, nor 
has it anything to do with the case (?). 3. God 
made man the crown of creation by putting his 
spirit into mortal matter and giving man moral 
liberty. 4. God guides and rules this world accord- 
ing to immutable natural laws made by him. It is 
conceivable and therefore possible ( !) that God, 
their creator and lord, can break those laws." 

There are six more of these in the same spirit, 
and the entire ten constitute the content of the Kep- 
ler catechism, by which Dennert as the "scientific 
director" of the Kepler League would give its Chris- 
tian philosophy a firm foundation. 

Every unprejudiced thinker instantly perceives 
that the catechism does not rest upon the firm 
foundation of scientific experience, but upon mystic 
revelation, the very opposite pole of scientific ex- 
perience. 

League of Falsifiers. In my statement of De- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



13 



cember 24, 1908. "Falsifications of Science/ 1 occa- 
sioned by the severe attacks of Brass and Tartiiffe, 
I showed up in their true colors the Jesuitic accusa- 
tions of my opponents. I called the Kepler League 
a league of scientific falsifiers. I might have 
said the same of the Catholic Thomist League, be- 
cause their methods and aims are absolutely similar. 
The Keplerists indignantly denied the charge and 
dubbed it a "monstrosity." I ask the gentlemen: 
"Is it no monstrosity of the leading authors of the 
Kepler League, acting upon the false charges of 
Dr. Brass, to call me in numerous articles and 
pamphlets a scientific liar and falsifier of science?" 
That is, call a scientist a falsifier of science who for 
half a century at a personal sacrifice pursued one 
goal, to learn the truth in nature, and by the help 
of its teachings free all thinking men from the yoke 
of superstition. 

As a matter of fact, it is both Jesuitical leagues 
who have falsified the whole idea of the cosmos by 
their endeavor to amalgamate the monistic results 
of modern natural science with the mystic, dual- 
istic dogmas of the miracle-believing church. 

Dr. Rudolf Hoernes, professor of paleontology 
and geology at Graz, said in one of his articles: 
"The Keplerists are not concerned to free science 
or serve truth. All they care about is to establish 
firmly the temporal dominion of the church, for 
which end they are willing to adopt any means." 
In another article, speaking of my alleged falsifi- 



14 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



cations of pictures of embryos, he writes: "The 
truth is, the leaders of the Kepler League want to 
do the utmost damage to the theory of evolution by 
discrediting one of its most prominent representa- 
tives. At least they want to prevent to the greatest 
possible extent the dissemination among lay per- 
sons of a teaching that interferes with their phi- 
losophy. And it is in disseminating that teaching 
among lay persons that Haeckel performed special 
services." 

The Jesuitic Press. The severe warfare I 
have been forced to carry on for forty years with 
the clerical and conservative press has enriched me 
with noteworthy experiences of its Jesuitical tactics 
and practices. In recent years it took the occasion 
of the embryo dispute to say particularly brutal and 
perfidious things. I therefore feel that here is the 
place to show up its conduct. 

Dr. Arnold Brass wrote two polemical pamphlets, 
Wahrheit (1906) and Affenproblem (1908), which 
were immediately greeted with joy by all the 
enemies of intellectual progress and enlightenment. 
Correspondents to the reactionary press gave them 
the widest publicity. Hundreds of important and 
minor papers forthwith published Brass's false 
charge to the whole world. To none of them did 
it occur to find out the real truth about these "over- 
whelming" accusations or refer them to competent 
trained men. And when scientifically trained men 
of their own accord made statements in rebuttal, 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



15 



as they did in several places, the clerical and con- 
servative press ignored them. Dr. Brass's over- 
whelming charges were repeated with visible glee. 

It is highly regrettable that a large part of the 
Liberal press was duped by these Jesuitical tactics. 
Many unbiased papers lent credence to the charges 
and gave them wider currency. The chief cause 
of this is the general ignorance of the biologic facts 
involved in the embryo dispute, ft was very sly 
in Dr. Brass to make his attack in a dark spot re- 
mote from the general fields of culture and offering 
peculiar difficulties even to the trained specialist. 
An example of the extent to which the Liberal 
press was deceived is offered by the case of 
"Tartuffe," which aroused much comment. 

Professor Tartuffe. After the appearance in 
1908 of Dr. Arnold Brass's das Affenproblem, the 
Allgemeine Zeitung of Munich published an 
anonymous article upon it. This anonymous arti- 
cle was the direct occasion of my reply of Decem- 
ber 24th, and it produced a whole series of disputes. 
The main point about the "Tartuffe" article (as I 
had to call it!) is that the anonymous Professor 
X takes Dr. Brass's "extraordinarily severe 
charges" as proved and — unwillingly! — deduces: 
"That they not only destroy the scientific reputa- 
tion of a man who, despite some slips, was held in 
high repute among wide circles, but they also ex- 
pose a positive stain upon German science ( !)." 

The rest of the article and the author's appeal to 



16 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



the opinion of the German embryoiogists were so 
perfidious, so Jesuitical, that I felt I was forced to 
my reply of December 24th. Besides, I had another 
motive, occasioned by the action of the Allgemeine 
Zeitung. The editors sent me the issue containing 
the "Tartiiffe article" with a characteristic letter, in 
which they offer me their columns for a short reply 
to the article, which, they said, they had printed 
with profound regret though they had felt com- 
pelled to do so because it came from a source raised 
high above doubt both as to scientific knowledge 
and loyalty. 

Of course, I did not accept the Allgemeine 
Zeitung 's offer, but sent my reply to the Berlin 
Volkszeitung, the editor of which is one of the few 
liberal newspaper heads who have worked for 
the advancement and propagation of the doctrine 
of evolution. 

The Falsifications of Arnold Brass. Dr. 
Arnold Brass provides the most plentiful source 
upon which the Jesuitic press has been drawing for 
some years to make charges against me of falsify- 
ing illustrations. Much as I dislike to touch upon 
the personal character of my opponents, I am com- 
pelled to do so in this case. For Brass is consider- 
ed the star witness in the great "embryo suit," and 
it is upon his authority that the numerous charges 
of falsification are brought against me. He is dis- 
tinguished from most of the other scientists in the 
Kepler League by his knowledge of zoology, anthro- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



17 



pology, comparative anatomy and ontogeny. But he 
misuses his knowledge to the utmost in order to 
throw a veil over the truth, or, as he says, to ad- 
vance the cause of truth. The whole clerical press, 
therefore, and especially the Keplerist papers, honor 
him as a St. George who killed the dragon of un- 
belief, monism. 

In the summer of 1906 Brass wrote a blooklet of 
ninety-six pages entitled Ernst Haeckel als Biologe 
und die Wahrheit. I shall refer to it as Wahrheit. 
It contains sharp attacks upon my monistic natural 
philosophy, especially as set forth in my "Riddle 
of the Universe/' and is full of perversions and ab- 
solute untruths. At the time I ignored his charges, 
as I did numerous other works against the "Riddle 
of the Universe." It was two years later that I 
was compelled to come out against Brass. In an 
address delivered in Berlin at a meeting of the 
Christian Socialists (April 1, 1908) he attacked me 
severely for having falsified the pictures of embryos. 
"The speaker," he said, "can make these charges 
from accurate knowledge directly acquired, since 
he himself made the true drawings for Haeckel. " 
Not a word of this is true! The base calumny 
necessitated my setting the matter right, and led me 
to write my article of December 24, 1908. Brass's 
answer to my article was his Affenproblem, the 
subtitle to which is "Professor Ernst Haeckel, his 
falsifications of science and its defense by German 
anatomists and zoologists. " 



ANSWEB TO THE JESUITS. 



Dr. Brass is very active as the official lecturer of 
the Kepler League. In an authentic communica- 
tion from the League he is recommended, and the 
following statement is made: "Dr. Brass's pay is 
guaranteed by the League." This statement is im- 
portant, for observe what Brass himself said in 
the same year, 1909 : "Besides, I am free. Nobody 
commissions me to lecture, etc. I am not the lec- 
turer of the Kepler League, nor do I draw my 
salary or any pay whatsoever from that body." 
There you have that highly lauded Christian love 
of truth of the pious Keplerists ! 

It would take a huge volume to correct the mis- 
statements, false deductions, and positive lies in Dr. 
Brass's lectures and writings. I shall limit myself 
to a critical discussion of a few points that can easily 
be made clear to every honorable person with some 
insight. 

Skeletons of Anthropoid Apes. Few observa- 
tions are so directly convincing of the close kinship 
of man and the anthropoid ape as a critical com- 
parison of the skeletons. It was a very happy idea 
of the English genius Thomas Huxley to place pic- 
tures of the skeletons of man and the four sur- 
viving anthropoid apes on the front page of his 
"Man's Place in Nature." I copied the pictures in 
my "Anthropogeny." Later in my published ad- 
dresses delivered in Berlin on the war about the 
idea of evolution, I used pictures of the same five 
skeletons, but from specimens in my own collection. 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



19 



I purposely choose a younger chimpanzee and 
orang outang, because their similarity to man is 
more striking than that of older apes. The skele- 
tons were photographed by my tried collaborator, 
Mr. Adolf Giltsch, and neither he nor I made any 
change whatsoever in their form or position. 

Now what does Dr. Brass say about these clear, 
absolutely faithful photographs? He indulges in 
the following untruths — for the greater glory of 
God ! 'These tables show intentional falsifications 
to uphold the false caption [Skeletons of the five 
Anthropoid Apes]. The uprightness of man's car- 
riage is concealed. The gorilla's knee has been 
pressed to make it appear to be standing straight. 
The walking posture of all the apes is false. . . . 
This table is an example of how Haeckel misuses 
the works of other people." 

Still more absurd is a criticism of Dr. Brass of 
tables I intend to give a museum. They are not 
yet made, the plan for them has not yet even been 
prepared. But that does not deter Dr. Brass from 
dishing up the following to his credulous readers : 
"I have seen some of the tables which are to serve 
as object lessons in the museum, and they make me 
feel ashamed for Haeckel and his friends. " 

We all know how tender the ape mother is of her 
young. Yet Brass teaches us that it is exactly the 
"selfless mother-love and mother-care that clearly 
distinguish man from all mammals and removes 
him far above the impulses and instincts of a beast." 



20 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



Dr. Brass also denies the existence of superfluous 
rudimentary organs. By that surprising decree he 
expunges an entire chapter from zoology and botany, 
one of the most interesting chapters of the whole 
of biology. 

Another strange statement of his is, "The cells 
of the human tissue differ conspicuously from those 
of other mammals." Now every histologist, every 
student, every physician who has examined micro- 
scopically the human tissue and the tissue of other 
mammals knows that their coarser and finer struc- 
ture, the morphologic and physiologic characteristics 
of their cells are exactly the same. In sixty years, 
ever since thousands of accurate observations have 
been made of the structure of the epithelium, the 
glands, the cartilage, the bones, the plain and 
striated muscles no one has succeeded in finding any 
histologic differences between man and the other 
animals. 

The same is true of the egg cell. Dr. Brass says 
the human egg cell is different from the ape's 
egg cell. He is the only one who has discovered 
that it is! 

My Embryo Pictures. In the earliest stages the 
resemblance of the outer form and inner structure 
of the embryos of the amniota, that is, of mammals, 
reptiles, and birds, are surprisingly alike. The most 
experienced specialists are not able to distinguish 
the young embryo of animals that later are so con- 




Fig. A. Human Sandalion according to Ernst Haeck- 
el. This figure is a schematized copy of Fig. B. The 
natural symmetry has been restored, and attached em- 
bryonal parts have been omitted. 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



21 



spicuously different as man and ape, dog and rab- 
bit, bird and squirrel. 

In this experiential fact of comparative embry- 
ology I see important proof of the theory of evolu- 
tion. In many of my works I placed in juxtaposi- 
tion a number of various embryos of amniota in 
three stages of development. I intentionally omitted 
unessential features from the representations, in 
order that the essential features should come out all 
the more clearly. It is these "schematizations" that 
have furnished Brass and his Keplerists with the 
best points at which to aim their calumnies. Others 
did not "approve" them either, although the right to 
use schematized reproductions, especially in illus- 
trating difficult form relations, is generally recog- 
nized in text books and popular works. 

In charging me with falsification they themselves 
falsified in the most brazen way. According to 
their allegations I maintained that the embryos I 
had compared are absolutely identical. All I had 
said is that their similarity is so great as to be con- 
fusing and deceptive. Neither I nor any scientist 
fever made the senseless statement that the embryos 
of men and apes, dogs and rabbits are at any stage 
of development identical. The very fact that they 
evolve into different things refutes such a thesis. 
Even in the simple, spherical germ-cell chemical 
differences in the molecular composition of the 
plasma may be assumed with certainty, though the 



22 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



limited means at our command prevent us from 
proving that they exist. 

The Sandalion of Vertebrates. The sandalion or 
sandal-germ is one of the most interesting natural 
forms. It is that important germ form of the em- 
bryo of the higher vertebrates or amniota which has 
the simple shape of a sandal or sole of a shoe. It 
is a thin, somewhat elliptical body, narrower in the 
middle and rounded and broader at the ends (Figs. 
A, B, C). It is an early stage of the embryo, at 
which nothing of the later characteristic form is to 
be discerned. None of the separate parts of the 
body are visible. Even vertebration has not yet be- 
come apparent. There is a very slight variation 
in its shape among the different amniota, especially 
in the relation of the length to the breadth and the 
rounding of the two halves. But its composition, 
or internal structure from a few simple primitive 
organs is the same in all amniota. 

The Human Sandalion. Figs. B and C represent 
the only two specimens of the human sandalion in 
its earliest stages of which we are certain that they 
have been completely observed. They are copied 
from the handsome Handatlas der Entwickelungs- 
geschichte des Menschen, by Julius Kollman. In 
1889 — twenty-two years ago ! — Count F. Spee pub- 
lished in the Archiv fur Anatomie "Observations of 
a human germ-disk with open medullary groove and 
canalis neurentericus." The excellent reproductions 
Count Spee made of this extremely important hu- 



r - - 

Saccules viteilinus _ N 



Amnion 



Medullary groove 



Canalis neurenteri^us «- 

Primitive streak 
Pedsneulus abdominals- 



V 



% / 



Fig. B. Human Sandalion according to Count Spee. 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



23 



man sandal-germ and its grooves, which are of 
great significance, have been used in all later text 
books and embryological plates. 

The famous human sandalion — two millimetres 
long! — is of extreme importance both for the onto- 
geny and the phylogeny of man, because it is the 
youngest and smallest embryo of the human race of 
which we possess reliable observations, and on 
which we can see the grooves revealing the whole 
finer structure of the organism. It is probably 
about twelve days old. Younger human embryos 
have never come under observation, though thou- 
sands of them are produced daily. At this early 
state the sandalion both in shape and internal 
structure is exactly the same in man as in the mam- 
mals most closely allied to man. 

This thin germ-disk resembling the sole of a shoe, 
being a bit narrower in the middle than at the ends, 
is about twice as long as it is broad. Along the 
middle of the back surface running from one end 
more than half the length of the sandalion is the 
medullary furrow, the beginnings of the spinal cord ; 
at the other end, the primitive streak, and in be- 
tween, connecting them, the canalis neurentericus. 

Falsifications of Sandalion Reproductions. In 
addition to its ontogenetic and phylogenetic value, 
Count Spee's classic embryo possesses special in- 
terest of a legal character, I may say. For it fur- 
nishes circumstantial evidence that the charges of 
falsifications made against me are malicious. No 



24 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



competent embryologist has any doubt that the 
sandalion in man and all other mammals is absolute- 
ly symmetrical. The two sides divided at one end 
by the medullary furrow, at the other end by the 
primitive streak are absolutely the same in size and 
shape. 

Now, apparently, Count Spee's reproduction con- 
tradicts this assumption. Here the outline is a bit 
unsymmetrical. At one end the left half is some- 
what narrower, at the other end somewhat broader 
than the right half. In addition, the primitive 
streak is not exactly in the middle. No unpreju- 
diced observer who is aware of the difficulties at- 
tendant upon the preparation and conservation of 
so extremely soft a body doubts that this asymmetry 
is purely accidental and is without morphologic sig- 
nificance. It arose when the delicate little germ 
leaf was transferred to the slide. But Count Spee, 
the happy discoverer of this treasure, most con- 
scientiously drew it just as he saw it under the 
microscope and did not give it the symmetrical 
shape we are justified in saying it has. 

In my "Anthropogeny" I made an absolutely 
faithful copy of Count Spee's picture. But along- 
side I put an improved picture of the same sanda- 
lion, that is, I removed the accidental asymmetry. 
I also omitted the disturbing remnants of the at- 
tached parts, which are of no significance in this 
case. I did this for the sake of comparison between 
the human sandalion and the similar embryos of a 




Fig. C. Human Sandalion according to Eternod 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



25 



rabbit and a pig. I am firmly convinced that my 
schematized figure more truly reproduces the shape 
of the symmetrical sandalion than the exact copy 
made by the discoverer, Count Spee. The lay per- 
son, therefore, in comparing the shape of the human 
sandalion and that of other mammals can obtain a 
better idea of their true relations from my repro- 
duction than from Count Spee's. The student of 
comparative embryology who sees that the essentials 
in both reproductions are the same will find that 
my "falsification" is perfectly justified and useful 
for purposes of instruction. 



MY CHUECH DEPAETUEE. 



BY ERNST HAECKEL. 

Since I have lately completely withdrawn from 
the Evangelical church, there comes to me a wish 
from many sides — and first from our Free Word — 
that I could make public my reasons for this step. 
So now that I must meet this wish I limit myself 
to the following short paragraphs: 

1. My personal relations to religion in general, 
and to Christianity in particular, I have already set 
forth in my well-known book "The World Riddle" 
("Riddle of the Universe J, ). But for the better 
understanding and completion of that confession 
the following facts and considerations must con- 
tinue it. 

2. Brought up by pious parents who belonged to 
the Free Evangelical church, then under the charge 
of the [famous] Schleiermacher, I remained dur- 
ing the first twenty years of my life a convinced 
and zealous adherent of that liberal form of Prot- 
estantism. 

Communicated to the "Free Word," Frankfort-on-the- 
Main, Germany. Translated for The Truth Seeker by 
T. B. Wakeman. 



28 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



3. But first, during my five years course of 
Academic Studies in the departments of Natural 
Science and Medicine (1852-1857), and later, es- 
pecially through my many travels, I gradually 
reached, through heavy soul conflicts, the convic- 
tion that the mystic faith-teachings of the Christian 
religion were completely irreconcilable with the cer- 
tain results of scientific experience. 

4. The changes and varied course of my life, 
in its third decade, also as thoroughly convinced 
me that the Christian religion, as far as the ethical 
and practical affairs and conduct of life were con- 
cerned, gave foundations just as little unassailable, 
unreliable and unsatisfactory in every point of view, 
as were those of its theoretic View of the World — 
[its cosmology]. 

5. As I had been thus from my early life in- 
clined and accustomed to earnestly reflect over the 
facts and appearances of things, and to follow out 
their real and efficient causes, I soon worked my 
way from an originally dmlistic and idealistic view 
of the world to a pure monistic and realistic phi- 
losophy: In so doing of decisive influence in the 
earlier stages were the writings of Goethe, and 
later (since 1860) those of Darwin. 

6. The fundamental lines (Grundzuge) of a 
strictly monistic, actually unifying [integrating] 
philosophy, which gave itself to me especially from 
the teachings of evolution, I have firstly outlined 
in my "General Morphology of Organisms" — my 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



29 



introductory work, in 1866; and later, in a more 
popular form, largely from that work, in my "Nat- 
ural History of Creation," in 1868. 

7. Next followed in natural order, "The Confes- 
sion of an Inquirer Into Nature," growing out of 
that Natural History. This Confession, given as 
my address at Altenburg in 1892, entitled "Moru- 
ism," definitely formulated Monism, as the Bond 
of Union between science and religion : and thereby 
was especially emphasized the utter impossibility 
of reconciling the Christian beliefs about "crea- 
tion," etc., with the important facts of evolution as 
now established. 

8. In November, 1905, at Jena, the German 
Monistic Union (Bund) was founded by the ad- 
herents of a strongly unitary view of the world, 
resting only on the results of a scientific knowledge 
of Nature; and at the wish of many friends and 
students I became its honorary president; and 
thereby was also accepted by us as Bond of Union 
and rule of conduct, the "Thirty Theses" which had 
been published in 1904 in The Free Word at Frank- 
furt. 

9. Since for more than twenty years I had in- 
wardly, from pure conviction, absolved myself 
from the faith-teachings of Christianity, it would 
have been only natural to have given proper expres- 
sion to this conviction outwardly by withdrawal 
from the Evangelical church. But this last step I 
left untaken out of regard to my family and some 



30 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



dear friends to whom I would thereby have brought 
heavy sorrow and injury, 

10. But if now, after ripe conviction, I have re- 
solved upon this last step it is because, in part, the 
personal considerations have meanwhile been re- 
moved by my long delay, and in part because now 
changes have made it repugnant to my sense of 
honor to continue even the external appearance of 
religious inconsistency, and to thus justify the cus- 
tomary hypocrisy in our land ; to wit : 

11. The reaction in regard to the church affairs 
and in politics which has developed in our German 
realm during the last twenty-two years under the 
government of what is called the "New Course ,, 
{"Neuen Kursus") increases constantly, and en- 
dangers more and more the freedom of the mental 
and spiritual progress, and the welfare of our dear 
fatherland. 

12. With the deepest regret it must be con- 
fessed that this reaction has found its strongest 
support in the much bewondered person of our 
highly gifted Emperor, William II., who, since the 
beginning of his reign, has placed himself in opposi- 
tion to the so-called "Old Course" (Alten Kursus) 
of his grandfather, William I. 

I belong to the genuine and grateful admirers of 
this first Hohenzollern emperor and of his great 
chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismarck, who, not 
merely as helper in the work, but as Maste* 
Architect, under the greatest difficulties, battled out 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



31 



the proud structure of the new German empire. 
Both of these great men were simple and free from 
show in their appearance, wise and strong in their 
action; both were gifted with a soul of genuine 
piety, never subjected to a power-seeking clergy; 
and they were accordingly as deeply hated by the 
Evangelical "cant" venders as they were by the 
ultramontane Catholic "center. " 

13. In contrast with this, the present emperor 
has nursed the romantic tendencies of his great 
uncle, Frederick William IV., to whom he seems to 
be related by his brilliant talent of speech, and his 
many-sided artistic talents. He shares with him 
also, as "Ruler by the Grace of God/ 9 or "Instru- 
ment of the Lord/' the often emphasized conviction 
that "The Throne and The Altar must mutually 
support each other" \ and even so with the danger- 
ous Catholicizing tendency of his [new] Protestant 
Christianity. 

14. In September, 1904, when I attended the 
International Freethinkers' Congress at Rome, the 
strangely "natural" friendship of the emperor and 
the pope was much discussed. In the Romish pa- 
pers the hope was expressed that the Emperor Wil- 
liam would soon return to the bosom of "the only 
salvation-giving church." The ostensive display 
which he paraded in the Vatican upon his visit to 
Pope Leo XIII. (the most dangerous enemy of the 
German Evangelical empire) estranged from him 
the sympathies of the sensitively educated Italians, 



32 



ANSWEB TO THE JESUITS. 



and all the more, as he was then the guest of the 
king of Italy at the Quirinal. 

15. The evidence, plain to every eye, of his 
Catholicizing tendencies was furnished by the em- 
peror, this year, when Pope Pius X., by his famous 
Borromean Encyclical, hurled into the face of 
Protestantism the most shameful insults. Every- 
where it was expected that William II., with his 
highly developed sense of honor, would give to that 
Romish German hostile pope (whom in 1899 I had 
characterized as the greatest charlatan in history) 
the becoming German rejoinder, but the Protestant 
emperor remained silent and left to the Catholic 
king of Saxony the honor of that reply. 

16. The> orthodox Evangelical church, which 
had in spite of everything secured this ascendency, 
and which has besides approached very near to the 
Catholic church, has shared with it the theory and 
practice of the Jesuits. Both cherish their funda- 
mental principle: The end (pleasing to God) jus- 
tifies and sanctifies the means (the persecution of 
the heretics). Both contest with equal energy and 
with like consequences the enlightenment of the 
people and the progress of their knowledge and cul- 
ture. To this end they use their powerful influence 
in church and state [and school]. 

17. Thus the separation of church and state, and 
also the absolute separation of church and school, 
appears to be more pressingly presented to us than 
ever before. In many civilized countries this sep- 



ANSWEB TO THE JESUITS, 



33 



aration, most important and useful to the state and 
the school, has been long ago effected; in Germany 
on the contrary, it stumbles over the most stiff- 
necked opposition. 

18. We must now more than ever seek by every 
lawful means in our power to bring about this sep- 
aration. For now the mighty power of the Catholic 
and Evangelical clergy, by a close union with the 
reactionary feudal nobility, is strengthened to a 
most dangerous degree. Both use in true Jesuitical 
way the cloak of religion for the veiling of their 
selfish interests and their lust of power. The 
notorious Black-blue Block threatens the founda- 
tion of our mental and spiritual freedom. 

19. Although these political considerations are 
for me by far the most powerful motives for con- 
sequent present withdrawal from the church, yet 
they are reinforced by a sense of disgust (Ekel) 
at the sham-holy hypocrisy and the old Byzantine 
sneaking, cringing treachery, which in the splen- 
dors of the showy new emperor throne threatens 
to lead us all to a general and dangerous demoraliza- 
tion. This compulsory education into an external 
churchdoom destroys the noblest qualifications for 
any true and inward religion. 

20. And finally there confirms me in my deter- 
mination to withdraw from the church, the neces- 
sary defense I have had to make against the 
measureless attacks and the honorless slanders 
which during the last two years the clerical and re- 



34 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



actionary press combined have hurled against my 
moral character. In the most vulgar modes of ex- 
pression, and through hundreds of papers and 
brochures, I am insulted and placed in the pillory 
as a traitor. And why? Pretendedly, because I 
have disgraced science through false illustration, 
especially concerning embryos; but in fact because 
for fifty years I have fearlessly and without regard 
to consequences defended the true modern teachings 
of evolution, and have furthered its most important 
result : that from the vertebrate animals the human 
species have descended. The two modern Brother- 
hoods of Jesuit Societies (Bunds), the evangelical 
Keplerbund, and the Catholic "Thomas Bund," 
have rivaled each other in these heinous charges. 
To both and all of them I have at last devoted a 
final and conclusive answer, which appeared in the 
December number of Neuen Frankfurter Verlag 
(now published as a pamphlet), under the title of 
"Sandalion ; an Open Answer to the False Charges 
of the Jesuits." 




JOSEPH McCABE. 



HAECKEL'S EMBBYO-DEA WINGS. 



BY JOSEPH M'CABE. 

During my wanderings at the Antipodes last 
year it seemed to be the impression of the opposi- 
tion that the most effective thorn they could strew 
in my path was the candid confession of Professor 
Haeckel that his drawings were forged. To judge 
from the letters inserted in the public press, before 
and after my visit, the clergy were positively weep- 
ing over the pathetic and lamentable end of the 
career of a great scientist. He was "morally and 
scientifically dead." In the book-shops, it is true, 
he seemed to be very much alive ; nor did any name 
draw such hearty plaudits from Australasian au- 
diences as that of Professor Haeckel. But from 
Perth to Invercargill there was mourning in the ec- 
clesiastical world at his sudden and inglorious 
decease. 

I have never told the whole truth in regard to 
this episode of Haeckel's later years, because I did 
not know it until this month. Let us have it out, 
and readers of the Guide throughout the world 



In the Literary Guide, London, March 1, 1911. 



36 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



will be able to stem the tears of their clerical friends. 
The discussion is not relegated to the Antipodes. 
Only a few days ago a London lecturer wrote to 
ask me the truth about it. Here is the truth ; and 
if the gentle readers find my language sinking at 
times from the highest level of courtesy, I must 
confess that I am not high-minded enough to speak 
altogether politely of a malignant and unscrupulous 
attempt, by dishonest means, to embitter the last 
years of well-earned rest of one of the greatest 
living scientists and the greatest living Rationalist. 
I take the facts from Dr. Schmidt's "Haeckel's 
Embryonenbilder ,, and professor HaeckeFs "San- 
dalion." 

The trouble began at the beginning of 1908. 
Haeckel had published a new work on the origin - 
of man (not translated), with several very fine and 
large plates. On this, Dr. Brass, a lecturer of the 
"Keplerbund" — a sort of Christian Evidence So- 
ciety masquerading as a scientific society — stated 
that Haeckel had so far tampered with his figures 
as to "put a human head on an ape-embryo, and 
vice versa," and this in spite of the fact that "he 
had personally shown Haeckel the correct illustra- 
tions/' Haeckel disdainfully replied that this was 
"an audacious lie," and later showed that he had 
never had any such communication with Dr. Brass, 
that the illustrations in question were accurate 
copies of figures by well-known embryologists, and 
that he had not drawn them himself at all. Dr. 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



Brass then amended his charge. Haeckel had, he 
said, cut off the tail of the embryo of a macacus 
(tailed monkey) and turned it into a tailless ape 
{gibbon), Haeckel thereupon, while denying ex- 
pressly the truth of the charge, published his fa- 
mous "confession" that six or eight per cent of his 
drawings were "falsified"; and a thrill of horror 
ran through the religious world. Naturally, the 
shudderers were not told that Haeckel spoke in 
the most patent irony, and admitted having done 
only what embryological illustrators were in the 
habit of doing — including, as we shall see, Dr. 
Dr. Brass. 

The usual clerical version of the story is that 
Haeckel was "forced to confess," under pressure 
from forty-seven of the leading scientists of Ger- 
many. This is quite the boldest of all the inaccu- 
racies — I am trying to be polite — I have ever seen 
in the clerical press. Haeckers statement appeared 
in the anti-clerical Berliner VoWszeitung for De- 
cember 29, 1908. No scientific man had at that 
time intervened, and the next paragraph will show 
what Haeckers forty-seven colleagues really did. 

Isolated medical men and professors were drawn 
in. One, of good standing, Professor Keibel, de- 
clared that Haeckel had, in perfect good faith, really 
shortened the tail of an embryo-monkey, taken va- 
rious other liberties, and inserted imaginary em- 
bryos without saying so. The Keplerbund took 
courage, and issued a circular to the leading scien- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



tific men of Germany, calling upon them to declare 
themselves. They did; but not quite as Professor 
Dennert wanted, and the clerical press represents. 
Nearly all the leading embryologists and anatomists 
in Germany signed this statement. I need only say 
that the forty-seven names include Weismann, 
Wiedersheim, Bonnet, Boveri, Kollmann, Hatschek, 
Flechsig, Waldeyer, Korschelt, Hertwig, Lang, 
Plate, Pfeffer, Rabl, Ruckert, Rhumbler, Ruge, 
Schwalbe, Goette, Chun, etc. And what they said 
was — a few lines sufficed — that, "though they did 
not like the kind of schematizing which Haeckel 
practiced in some cases, they, in the interest of 
science and the freedom of teaching, condemned in 
the sharpest manner the attack of Brass and the 
Keplerbund on Haeckel." 

In face of that document, religious journals — 
the journals which are always wondering how men 
can possibly be truthful and good without their as- 
sistance — are assuring their readers all over the 
world that Haeckel is "morally and scientifically 
dead," and has been condemned by German science. 
But was there not a counterblast to this defense 
of Haeckel? There was — the blast of a penny 
trumpet. A document in condemnation of Haeckel 
was issued by the Keplerbund, and signed by thirty- 
six men, some of them of great distinction in the 
world of science. But what our truthful friends 
always omit to say in regard to this document is 
that the men of real distinction who signed it were 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



39 



astronomers, geologists, botanists, lawyers, etc., 
but never embryologists. Their judgment on the 
point is absolutely worthless, and, indeed, they do 
not pretend to be able to judge it. They take the 
word of Dr. Brass, the worth of which we shall 
see in a moment. 

The second round had gone very badly for Herr 
Brass. The third was fatal. Some amiable and 
religious director of a bank chid Professor Hertwig 
for letting the defender of the faith down so badly. 
The distinguished embryologist replied that he had 
welcomed that means of giving expression to his 
"indignation," which was "so much the greater as 
he saw the name of Brass again for the first time 
since the scientific activity of the man had come to 
a deserved and unfortunate end in the field of 
zoology — twenty-five years before." A bad hit for 
Dr. Brass. Then Professor Rabl, another of the 
leading embryologists, son-in-law of Haeckel's 
great opponent, Virchow, entered the lists, and fin- 
ished the defender of the faith. In the Frankfurter 
Zeitung for March 5, 1909, he, like Hertwig, em- 
phasized the great services of Haeckel to science, 
and showed that Brass had, in his illustrated w r orks, 
committed precisely the faults he brought against 
Haeckel. Brass was, he said, a "mere layman" in 
embryology, and university students had to be 
warned not to trust his illustrations. Professor 
Forel also joined in the defense of Haeckel. 

So the "honor" of Professor Haeckel was amply 



40 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



vindicated by the anatomists and embryologists of 
Germany. It will be more difficult to rehabilitate 
the honor of the religious press, which has, in de- 
fiance of the plain facts of the case, trailed its un- 
scrupulous slander over the world. But there is a 
further point. What of this "practice of schema- 
tizing" on Haeckel's part which his colleagues "do 
not like"? 

In the first place, the assertion that it was done 
to prove a thesis is part of the slander. Says 
Professor Rabl: "Illustrations which are absolute- 
ly true to nature prove Haeckel's phylogenetic de- 
ductions far better and more convincingly than his 
schematic figures do." That cuts down a fine crop 
of "inaccuracies." Secondly, the general public 
probably sees only one point of great importance in 
Haeckers embryonic figures — the gill-slits, which 
so strikingly show the fish-ancestry. About these 
there is no dispute. I have seen human embryos, 
and any reader of the "Evolution of Man" knows 
that the illustrations taken from other authors 
wholly agree with those of Haeckel in this. Thirdly, 
a writer for the general public, which is not per- 
mitted to see undeveloped human beings, has not 
the same task as a professor of embryology. For 
instance, Haeckel commonly cuts away the ventral 
pedicle and yelk sac and clears the abdomen. Pro- 
fessor Keibel says that it is wrong. It is a mere 
matter of opinion. That is an example of schema- 
tizing. 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



41 



But we may, in conclusion, turn to Haeckel's own 
book for his defense on this point. He has an 
easy task with many of the "falsifications" which 
the acute eye of Dr. Brass discovered. Some 
readers will remember a fine plate showing the 
skeletons of man and the four anthropoid apes — 
which, in unconscious humor, I have entitled "Five 
Anthropoid Apes" — in the "Last Words on Evolu- 
tion." Dr. Brass finds grave and purposive in- 
acccuracies in them. But they are photographs of 
the actual skeletons. Next, Dr. Brass has person- 
ally seen certain genetic tables for the instruction 
of the public in Haeckel's Museum, and is "full of 
shame for Haeckel and his friends." But the tables 
do not yet exist. 

The best idea of this schematizing, however, can 
be conveyed at once to any reader who has "The 
Evolution of Man." Fig. 137 (complete edition) 
shows a human embryo drawn by Count Spee. Fig. 
M. I, on Plate V (two pages later), shows the same 
figure "schematized" by Haeckel for the purpose 
of comparison. The charge of "falsifying" is ludi- 
crous, and the aim of Haeckel quite plain. Yet this 
is one of the classical examples. Another is the 
alleged cutting-short of the tail of the poor em- 
bryonic monkey. The truth is that even the human 
embryo is so excellently tailed at an early stage 
that there could be no point in such a procedure. 
Again, where Brass quarrels with the number of 



42 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



vertebrae in a human embryo, no definite number 
was intended, as the number is variable. 

These examples will suffice to explain Haeckers 
procedure. He has tried to aid the general reader 
by schematizing six or eight per cent of his pic- 
tures. Many of his colleagues think that he ought 
not to have done so, but they sternly denounce the 
indictment of his "honor," and declare that more 
exact figures prove the evolution of man even 
more conclusively. Haeckel maintains that, in deal- 
ing with an inexpert public, he was quite right in 
putting certain figures diagrammatically, and ma- 
king hypothetical drawings of others where the 
actual object is not available. It is an academic 
dispute. But that Haeckel confessed to misleading 
the public, or misled the public in order to prove 
his thesis, that any scientific men forced him to con- 
fess, or that the embryologists and anatomists of 
Germany ever sanctioned the attack on him, are 
frigid and calculated inaccuracies. They have gone 
through the religious press of the world. For the 
satisfaction of dishonoring in the minds of their 
readers a man whose character is as great as his 
service to science and to truth, they have repro- 
duced, without the least scruple to inquire into its 
truth or untruth, a mess of malignant mendacity. 
The forgers are in the churches. 



WHERE STANDS PROFESSOR HAECKEL 

NOW? 



BY THADEUS BURR WAKE MAN. 

To be able to get out of a great life trouble safely, 
wisely, and well is a very great achievement; but a 
greater is to be able to use such victory so as to 
make it the greatest possible victory to one's self 
and to others. It is now the great good fortune of 
Professor Haeckel that he is in a position in which 
he may be able to do both of these great things. 
In his twenty reasons for leaving the church in the 
last Truth Seeker and in his recent pamphlet, 
"Sandalion," vindicating him and his motives from 
the charges of the Jesuit conspiracy against him, he 
stands out free and clear, the one noble man, pre- 
pared by science, time and circumstances to do his 
noblest work. That work would be the extension 
around the earth of the monistic, secular scientific 
Alliance founded by him upon his thirty Theses; 
these Theses which really caused the Jesuit rage 
and conspiracy against him. Because the truths 
set forth by this scientific Luther could not be an- 
swered, they determined to destroy the man by 



44 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



striking down his moral character so that he might 
not be believed. But "truth is mighty and will pre- 
vail," and so in the end it will fall upon and crush 
these meanest of conspiring slanderers. They are 
the meanest, for no other word can describe those 
who attempt to "trade upon," and so misuse the 
ignorance of multitudes in order to get them to 
morally assassinate the one who has spent his life in 
trying to educate and enlighten them? 

This is the way it was done: The word "San- 
dalion" is a Greek word for sandal or shoe-sole, 
largely used in the Orient. Biologists use the word 
to describe the embryo forms of vertebrate and 
mammalian animals which look like it. The evolu- 
tion biologists show that the similarity of these 
forms was such as to plainly indicate that all of 
the higher forms of these animals were descended 
from the lower forms of the vertebrates. This is 
done by making type forms of the Sandalion varia- 
tions of the different species to be compared. Such 
"schematized" synthetic ideal forms are just as 
necessary to the comparative biologist as his micros- 
cope, camera, or chemical preservatives, and so such 
forms have been in general use from Darwin, 
Huxley and others for a long time, and by none 
more effectively than by Professor Haeckel, the 
leader in that department of science. It was only 
necessary for one of these schematized forms to be 
compared with some special one to discover dif- 
ferences, which Haeckel points out were never ma- 



ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 



45 



terial, but that the succession of similarities was 
carefully preserved — as is done in Huxley's suc- 
cession of anthropoid and human skeletons, for the 
same purpose; that it is not to deceive but to en- 
lighten the observer by enabling him to connect 
the links in the chain of evidence. There was no 
intent or thought of fraud or deceit in all this in 
the mind of Haeckel more than there was in the 
mind of Darwin in his varying pictures, showing 
the fertilization and variations of orchids. But the 
pictures were not the same! They were never in- 
tended to be, and would be worthless if they were J 

On this simple fact these Jesuits could load up 
the uninformed minds and prejudiced feelings of 
multitudes with a magnificent lie for the glory of 
their "God," and they did ! 

On pages 45 of his Sandalion pamphlet Professor 
Haeckel gives a page specimen of this Jesuit abuse, 
and in the Appendix we find the response of the bi- 
ologists of Germany practically in Haeckel's favor 
unanimously — 46 at one time — as far as any wrong- 
ful intent was concerned. As to minor biological 
details complete unanimity is not to be expected. 
Doctors w r ould not be doctors if they did not dis- 
agree. 

But as to the main contention that "the human 
species have descended from the vertebrate ani- 
mals/' there is no longer serious question. Darwin 
and Huxley have been succeeded by Menchekoff, 
the successor of Pasteur, by Haeckel, as the sue- 



46 



ANSWEB TO THE JESUITS. 



cessor of the great mass of the scientists and evolu- 
tionists of our time; and there is not the slightest 
doubt that their verdict will stand affirmed and con- 
firmed for ever ! 

Where, then, and for what, does Ernst Haeckel, 
the representative of this great affirmation of 
science, stand? He has answered by leaving the 
church and joining the Monistic Secular Alliance 
of the free-minded people of the world. In his 
country, where church and state are united, he was 
wise in not acting rashly. He did not leave until 
an Alliance had been formed that could far more 
than take its place for all the good it could do. 

Not by his own act or choice, but by the evolution 
of circumstances which he could not control, he 
now stands before the civilized world with the 
question : Shall Natural Science and Humanity, or 
Supernatural Illusion and Dogma, lead the future 
of the Human Race? If the former, the peoples 
that surround the Atlantic ocean will see in the 
Monistic Scientific Alliance the future "Republic 
of Man." If the latter, the supremacy of the Jesuits 
and the pope will be the future of mankind* 



WORKS of ERNST HAECKEL 



HISTORY OF CREATION ; or The Devel- 
opment of the Earth and Its Inhabitants 
by the Action of Natural Causes. 

A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in 
General, and that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck 
in Particular. The translation revised by Professor 
E. Ray Lankester. Illustrated with Lithographic 
Plates. In two vols., 12mo, revised. Cloth, §5.00. 

EVOLUTION OF MAN 

A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of Human 
Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Quarto, cloth, $1. 20 net. 

VISIT TO CEYLON 

With Portrait and Map of India and Ceylon. M These 
letters constitute one of the most charming books of 
travel ever published, quite worthy of being placed by 
the side of Darwin's * Voyage of the Beagle. ' " 
Post 8vo, 348 pages. Cloth, §1.00. 

RIDDLE OF THE UNIVERSE 

This is an English translation of Prof. Haeckel's 
magnificent work, Die Weltrathsel. The main strength 
of the book lies in a terse and telling summary of scien- 
tific achievements of the nineteenth century in their 
relation to the M Riddle of the Universe." Post 8vo, 
391 pages, $1.50. 

WONDERS OF LIFE 

The great success of "The Riddle of the Universe," 
a success which astonished Professor Haeckel, with the 
innumerable letters that reached him asking for more 
knowledge to supplement that of "The Riddle," led 
the author to write this volume, " The Wonders of 
Life." It is a popular study of biological philosophy, 
dealing especially with problems relating to the nature 
and evolution of the mind and the theory of knowledge 
and truth. Post 8vo, 485 pages, $1.50 net. Postage 
11 cents extra. 

LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION 

A Popular Retrospect and Summary. Translated from 
the Second Edition by Joseph McCabe. With three 
plates and Haeckel' s latest portrait. Dr. Haeckel has 
a worldwide reputation, and it will be generally con- 
ceded that this, probably his last great work, is a 
supreme and masterly effort. Price, paper, 30 cents. 

LAST LINK IN EVOLUTION 

By Ernst Haeckel. (Tract.) 4 cents. A summary of 
Ernst Hackers address on the immediate ancestors 
of man. 



THE TRUTH SEEKER, 62 Vesey St., N.Y. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




021 899 250 A 



